So because I have to pay to get into a public park or reserve, it's suddenly not "really" public?
If I (a private individual/entity) owned a 60 acre flatland park, and one day decided not to allow people on my land, is that not my right as land owner?
If we allow a person to own the beach, then it is their property to disallow trespassers.
The better question would be why do we allow ownership of a beach.
Because people really want beaches, but aren't willing to pay taxes to buy back what is now private property. Fifth amendment says the gov't must pay for private property, and the California law is arguably un-constitutional. Just buy a path under eminent domain; problem solved. Honestly, this seems like an expression of resentment against a rich guy as much as anything, as evinced by others proposing to take boats to the beach and bang on drums.
Devil's advocate: why do we place such a high value on a "beach" vs any other kind of land? Is there something extra precious about where the water meets the land?
It also has pretty universal recreational purposes. People love to go to beaches and swim, sunbathe, picnic, surf, play volleyball, etc. I'm surprised it's utility is even being questioned, this is a very strong cultural norm.
>I'm surprised it's utility is even being questioned, this is a very strong cultural norm.
In a world where even the most fundamental cultural norms are being questioned and upended, you're surprised that someone asks why a beach is so much more important than other land?
Same reason we value ice cream over poop.
Absolutely. Maybe not tangibly precious, but anyone whose ever stood on a beach and looked out over the ocean knows that there's definitely something special about it.
Our natural obsession with tracking the moon also plays into this, as a way of predicting when tidal conditions are best to forage/fish/etc.
It's analogous to the theory where marathon hunting contributed to our physical endurance, brain power and predictive abilities, upright running, sweating, etc.
Both theories attempt to explain the general sense of pleasure we get from visiting the beach and long distance running, respectively.
It's like squatters rights, but for a public right-of-way.
You can't claim squatters rights if you've been paying rent to the property owner the whole time.
In the same way, if the previous owner "licensed" access across his property, by charging fees for parking and/or entry, then no prescriptive right-of-way is/was ever established. It would be permissive right-of-way.
Since aquisition by prescription typically requires some element of abandonment, charging fees serves a double purpose: 1) proving the property is "in-use" / not abandoned, and 2) that the paying public recognized the private property rights of the owner. (Ie, that there was no public understanding or "expectation" that access across the private property should be free and/or unrestricted.)
Since legal consideration is required for a lawfully recognized contract, charging a fee makes this implied recognition of the property rights legally valid.